4 ms·

> needlessly emotional responses This isn't objective at all - and illustrates the problem perfectly.

Daishiman 6y ago
On the contrary, it's in the face of ambiguity and subjectivity that management has to make hard decisions based on philosophy and values; leadership exists to clarify grey areas. And the difference between management making those decisions and staff is that management is ultimately where the responsibility for those decisions, right or wrong, lies. On subjective policies a lot of things will come down to personal judgement calls. The founders have spoken as such; and frankly if staff considers the decision to egregious, at this point, they're free to assess whether their values are compatible or not.
- tomlockwood 6y ago
  > On the contrary, it's in the face of ambiguity and subjectivity that management has to make hard decisions based on philosophy and values; leadership exists to clarify grey areas. From the article: "That confusion is compounded by the fact that, for a small company, Basecamp has taken an outsized number of political stances — all of which employees are encouraged to discuss. Most prominently, the company and its founders have been vocal critics of Apple’s 30 percent tax on in-app purchases. But it has also involved itself in politics at a much lower level: in 2018 Basecamp let a candidate for Chicago mayor use its office in the West Loop as a campaign headquarters. Basecamp employees are encouraged to discuss the company’s own political positions — or, perhaps more accurately, the founders’ political positions — as much as they like. Keeping track of which issues of the moment are up for discussion thus becomes one more chunk of mental overhead for employees who are already struggling." There's no clarification here - since they've banned political discussion and this is a subjective boundary - nothing has been adequately clarified. And saying they're just banning the "needlessly emotional responses" is again, not clear.
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    You're not being realistic by demanding clarity in a murky area. So yeah, it's gonna be a personal judgement call. Founders aren't necessarily gonna have a clear idea either, so you just need to expect leeway, _especially_ in small companies.
    - tomlockwood 6y ago
      > You're not being realistic by demanding clarity in a murky area. But I'm not demanding clarity. I'm saying it is impossible to provide clarity on a subjective topic like this.
      - Daishiman 6y ago
        Exactly. The clarity is the boss telling you go/no go. For some things it doesn't get much better than that. But having someone actually _telling_ you "yes" or "no" is infintely better than a boss that sits in the sidelines or tries to please everyone fruitlessly.
        tomlockwood 6y ago
        But that's not what Basecamp management is doing by banning "political discussion". It's not clear what that means, particularly given they take outspoken political positions. There's no go/no go here.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    That reflects, in large part (one issue out of two = half), more on the author of the article than of the memos: Apple is a business entity (and partner/adversary/both of Basecamp's), not a political party.

On the contrary, it's in the face of ambiguity and subjectivity that management has to make hard decisions based on philosophy and values; leadership exists to clarify grey areas. And the difference between management making those decisions and staff is that management is ultimately where the responsibility for those decisions, right or wrong, lies. On subjective policies a lot of things will come down to personal judgement calls. The founders have spoken as such; and frankly if staff considers the decision to egregious, at this point, they're free to assess whether their values are compatible or not.

tomlockwood 6y ago
> On the contrary, it's in the face of ambiguity and subjectivity that management has to make hard decisions based on philosophy and values; leadership exists to clarify grey areas. From the article: "That confusion is compounded by the fact that, for a small company, Basecamp has taken an outsized number of political stances — all of which employees are encouraged to discuss. Most prominently, the company and its founders have been vocal critics of Apple’s 30 percent tax on in-app purchases. But it has also involved itself in politics at a much lower level: in 2018 Basecamp let a candidate for Chicago mayor use its office in the West Loop as a campaign headquarters. Basecamp employees are encouraged to discuss the company’s own political positions — or, perhaps more accurately, the founders’ political positions — as much as they like. Keeping track of which issues of the moment are up for discussion thus becomes one more chunk of mental overhead for employees who are already struggling." There's no clarification here - since they've banned political discussion and this is a subjective boundary - nothing has been adequately clarified. And saying they're just banning the "needlessly emotional responses" is again, not clear.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  You're not being realistic by demanding clarity in a murky area. So yeah, it's gonna be a personal judgement call. Founders aren't necessarily gonna have a clear idea either, so you just need to expect leeway, _especially_ in small companies.
  - tomlockwood 6y ago
    > You're not being realistic by demanding clarity in a murky area. But I'm not demanding clarity. I'm saying it is impossible to provide clarity on a subjective topic like this.
    - Daishiman 6y ago
      Exactly. The clarity is the boss telling you go/no go. For some things it doesn't get much better than that. But having someone actually _telling_ you "yes" or "no" is infintely better than a boss that sits in the sidelines or tries to please everyone fruitlessly.
      - tomlockwood 6y ago
        But that's not what Basecamp management is doing by banning "political discussion". It's not clear what that means, particularly given they take outspoken political positions. There's no go/no go here.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  That reflects, in large part (one issue out of two = half), more on the author of the article than of the memos: Apple is a business entity (and partner/adversary/both of Basecamp's), not a political party.